UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JERMAINE JOSEPH DUNLAP, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 22-1095 (UNA) ) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, ) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, ) ) Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on the petition for a writ habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) of

Jermaine Joseph Dunlap, a California state prisoner. The assertions set forth in the petition are

incomprehensible. That said, by filing a habeas petition the Court presumes that petitioner

challenges his conviction and sentence and demands his release from custody.

A habeas action is subject to jurisdictional and statutory limitations. See Braden v. 30th

Judicial Cir. Ct. of Ky.,

(1973). The proper respondent in a habeas corpus action is

petitioner’s custodian, Rumsfeld v. Padilla,

(2004), who ordinarily is the

warden of the facility where a petitioner is detained, see Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh,

(D.C. Cir. 1988). And this “district court may not entertain a habeas petition involving

present physical custody unless the respondent custodian is within its territorial jurisdiction.”

Stokes v. U.S. Parole Comm’n,

(D.C. Cir. 2004). The petition neither

names petitioner’s custodian as a respondent nor demonstrates that the respondent is in the

District of Columbia.

1 The Court will grant petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss his

petition without prejudice for want of jurisdiction. A separate Order accompanies this

Memorandum Opinion.

2022.05.06 11:50:23 -04'00' DATE: May 6, 2022 ________________________ TREVOR N. McFADDEN United States District Judge

2